politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why the Northern Ireland border has been such a difficult issu
Comments
-
NI voted as part of UK, and bound to that decision. The voters voted as part of the citizenship in U.K. rather than residency in NI I.e. for Stormont elections.Anazina said:
NI did vote, and voted to remain.Omnium said:
NI didn't vote. The UK did. The vote counts across the UK only.Anazina said:
NI voted to RemainAmpfieldAndy said:
If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances and national debt.williamglenn said:
The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.AmpfieldAndy said:There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.
Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.
Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).0 -
Treating the constituent countries of the U.K. as equivalent for constitutional purposes is a nonsense when England contains 85% of the population. There is no good reason why English votes should be worth much less than those in the other countries.
I think our ‘deep state’ is uniquely relaxed about its own disintegration.
0 -
It is and was a majority UK-wide issue. What do you imagine I might not like from that conclusion?williamglenn said:
The amendment to ensure the referendum required each nation to approve Brexit was dismissed on the basis that the referendum was advisory, therefore if you want to treat it as a majoritarian UK-wide issue, you need to deal with the consequences that flow from that.Omnium said:
NI didn't vote. The UK did. The vote counts across the UK only.Anazina said:
NI voted to RemainAmpfieldAndy said:
If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances and national debt.williamglenn said:
The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.AmpfieldAndy said:There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.
Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.
Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-06-16/debates/15061658000001/europeanunionreferendumbill0 -
The fact that it cannot be delivered in the way that you want on a UK-wide basis?Omnium said:
It is and was a majority UK-wide issue. What do you imagine I might not like from that conclusion?williamglenn said:
The amendment to ensure the referendum required each nation to approve Brexit was dismissed on the basis that the referendum was advisory, therefore if you want to treat it as a majoritarian UK-wide issue, you need to deal with the consequences that flow from that.Omnium said:
NI didn't vote. The UK did. The vote counts across the UK only.Anazina said:
NI voted to RemainAmpfieldAndy said:
If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances and national debt.williamglenn said:
The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.AmpfieldAndy said:There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.
Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.
Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-06-16/debates/15061658000001/europeanunionreferendumbill0 -
The West Midlands did vote, and voted to leave. Your point?Anazina said:
NI did vote, and voted to remain.Omnium said:
NI didn't vote. The UK did. The vote counts across the UK only.Anazina said:
NI voted to RemainAmpfieldAndy said:
If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances and national debt.williamglenn said:
The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.AmpfieldAndy said:There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.
Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.
Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).
0 -
Disintegration may well be inevitable; failing to build into the structure of the Union mechanisms that provide for compromise between the individual and collective interests of the members is a certain means both to hasten that process and, ultimately, to guarantee that it occurs.RoyalBlue said:Treating the constituent countries of the U.K. as equivalent for constitutional purposes is a nonsense when England contains 85% of the population. There is no good reason why English votes should be worth much less than those in the other countries.
I think our ‘deep state’ is uniquely relaxed about its own disintegration.
England and Wales will probably still be joined at the hip beyond any of our natural lifetimes, but Scotland and Northern Ireland could easily be gone within the next ten years. Personally I'm ambivalent about the prospect: on the one hand I'm not eager to see the end of the UK, on the other hand there's a lot to be said both for the reunification of Ireland and for the termination of a union within which, at the very least, a disruptively large minority of Scots are permanently malcontent. However, those who are determined to see the UK survive really need to think creatively about the balance of rights and responsibilities that exist within and between its constituent parts.0 -
I feel flattered that the SNP are reading my posts...!Floater said:Ho Ho
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/18/forget-government-vote-no-confidence-opposition/
Jezbollah the genius.0 -
An accusation that more accurately could be addressed towards Brexiteers and the UK government IMO. The EU is trying to maintain the status quo.ydoethur said:
I do wonder if the EU is being recklessly complacent in forgetting the Loyalist paramilitary groups and their potential reaction. It wasn't just the IRA that went around killing people.Philip_Thompson said:The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland voted peacefully and democratically to Leave the European Union.
Therefore the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should Leave the European Union.
The EU attempts to annex a part of our country undemocratically are risking the very sectarian violence it is supposed to prevent. As well as being an undemocratic abomination.
The solution is simple. Both sides agreeing a temporary can kicking transition agreement with nothing permanent agreed. Then work together in the spirit of the GFA to create something imaginative.
Not some blunt hammer smashing peoples rights.0 -
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I have understood today's events correctly the government has committed itself to spending £2bn to implement a policy which the government itself does not support, and which most ministers and MPs believe would be disastrous.Anazina said:
Whereas fixing Brexit costs a fucking fortune.RoyalBlue said:
Fixing socialism is always expensive.sarissa said:
So roughly 7-8% of cumulative GDP? Sounds like the Irish are getting a bargain!John_M said:
No figures to hand, but the aggregate number to 2011 was ~ 2 trillion euros.sarissa said:
What was the equivalent GDP % for Germany’s reunification?John_M said:
There was a very good article in the FT a couple of weeks ago outlining that it might very well be possible for the RoI to absorb NI.AmpfieldAndy said:
If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances andnatio al debt.williamglenn said:
The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.AmpfieldAndy said:There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.
Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.
Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).
https://www.ft.com/content/7d5244a0-f22d-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9d0d
To summarise, the RoI would need to find around 4% of its GDP. That seems like a relatively small price to pay for a united Ireland.
NI demographics are also running the nationalists' way. The proportion of young Catholics to Protestants is 45:34. There will be an absolute Catholic majority by 2030.
Partition has been an economic disaster for the six counties. RoI incomes are around 70% higher now, where they were roughly at parity in the 1980s.
Now, as we've seen from Brexit, economics aren't everything. However, there are now some good arguments for moderate Unionists to consider. The RoI is no longer a quasi-theocracy.
.
Meanwhile police numbers continue to shrink, the homeless become ever more obvious on our streets and the poor queue for foodbanks.0 -
Just because they don't want it to happen doesn't mean it won't happen.anothernick said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I have understood today's events correctly the government has committed itself to spending £2bn to implement a policy which the government itself does not support, and which most ministers and MPs believe would be disastrous.
Meanwhile police numbers continue to shrink, the homeless become ever more obvious on our streets and the poor queue for foodbanks.0 -
Ah, bonsoir Jean-Claude!Donny43 said:0 -
I'm not sure you have any idea of what I may want. In fact I'm sure that you don't. But do tell me precisely what it is that I may want so that I can catch up.williamglenn said:
The fact that it cannot be delivered in the way that you want on a UK-wide basis?Omnium said:
It is and was a majority UK-wide issue. What do you imagine I might not like from that conclusion?williamglenn said:
The amendment to ensure the referendum required each nation to approve Brexit was dismissed on the basis that the referendum was advisory, therefore if you want to treat it as a majoritarian UK-wide issue, you need to deal with the consequences that flow from that.Omnium said:
NI didn't vote. The UK did. The vote counts across the UK only.Anazina said:
NI voted to RemainAmpfieldAndy said:
If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances and national debt.williamglenn said:
The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.AmpfieldAndy said:There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.
Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.
Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-06-16/debates/15061658000001/europeanunionreferendumbill
0 -
You asked what I imagine about what you may want and I answered based on this discussion. The question mark indicated that I was seeking clarification from you given that presumably you have a better idea about what you want than I do, but apparently not.Omnium said:
I'm not sure you have any idea of what I may want. In fact I'm sure that you don't. But do tell me precisely what it is that I may want so that I can catch up.williamglenn said:
The fact that it cannot be delivered in the way that you want on a UK-wide basis?Omnium said:
It is and was a majority UK-wide issue. What do you imagine I might not like from that conclusion?williamglenn said:
The amendment to ensure the referendum required each nation to approve Brexit was dismissed on the basis that the referendum was advisory, therefore if you want to treat it as a majoritarian UK-wide issue, you need to deal with the consequences that flow from that.Omnium said:
NI didn't vote. The UK did. The vote counts across the UK only.Anazina said:
NI voted to RemainAmpfieldAndy said:
If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances and national debt.williamglenn said:
The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.AmpfieldAndy said:There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.
Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.
Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-06-16/debates/15061658000001/europeanunionreferendumbill0 -
It's an additional £2bn, for a total of £3.6bn.anothernick said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I have understood today's events correctly the government has committed itself to spending £2bn to implement a policy which the government itself does not support, and which most ministers and MPs believe would be disastrous.Anazina said:
Whereas fixing Brexit costs a fucking fortune.RoyalBlue said:
Fixing socialism is always expensive.sarissa said:
So roughly 7-8% of cumulative GDP? Sounds like the Irish are getting a bargain!John_M said:
No figures to hand, but the aggregate number to 2011 was ~ 2 trillion euros.sarissa said:
What was the equivalent GDP % for Germany’s reunification?John_M said:
There was a very good article in the FT a couple of weeks ago outlining that it might very well be possible for the RoI to absorb NI.AmpfieldAndy said:
If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances andnatio al debt.williamglenn said:
The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.AmpfieldAndy said:There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.
Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.
Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).
https://www.ft.com/content/7d5244a0-f22d-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9d0d
.
Meanwhile police numbers continue to shrink, the homeless become ever more obvious on our streets and the poor queue for foodbanks.0 -
Is this the EU-UK negotiating reenactment society meeting?williamglenn said:
You asked what I imagine about what you may want and I answered based on this discussion. The question mark indicated that I was seeking clarification from you given that presumably you have a better idea about what you want than I do, but apparently not.Omnium said:
I'm not sure you have any idea of what I may want. In fact I'm sure that you don't. But do tell me precisely what it is that I may want so that I can catch up.williamglenn said:
The fact that it cannot be delivered in the way that you want on a UK-wide basis?Omnium said:
It is and was a majority UK-wide issue. What do you imagine I might not like from that conclusion?williamglenn said:
The amendment to ensure the referendum required each nation to approve Brexit was dismissed on the basis that the referendum was advisory, therefore if you want to treat it as a majoritarian UK-wide issue, you need to deal with the consequences that flow from that.Omnium said:
NI didn't vote. The UK did. The vote counts across the UK only.Anazina said:
NI voted to RemainAmpfieldAndy said:
If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances and national debt.williamglenn said:
The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.AmpfieldAndy said:There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.
Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.
Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-06-16/debates/15061658000001/europeanunionreferendumbill0 -
No way would he be sober enough to type that at this time of night.Black_Rook said:
Ah, bonsoir Jean-Claude!Donny43 said:0 -
Hard Brexit requires Hard Unionism. The GFA requires very Soft Unionism. A 3.8% UK wide winning margin in which two of the four nations voted Remain doesn't support the Hard Unionism needed for Hard Brexit. We always focus on Brexiters delusions re the UK/EU power imbalance but their delusion re the intra UK power imbalance is equally blind. The two nations which voted Remain are the two with credible options to secede. Which leads to us the real power imbalance. Between what Brexiters think 51.9% once 2.5 years ago entitles them to and the real power exchange rate those votes buy them now.0
-
IanB2 said:
Is this the EU-UK negotiating reenactment society meeting?
0 -
Mrs M has choreographed everything nicely to reach a climax in mid-January. I bet she commissioned the Channel Four Cumberbatch drama, as well; with any luck it should really spook the Brexiters to see the con-trick they pulled off dramatised for a TV audience.viewcode said:0 -
Great analysisYellow_Submarine said:Hard Brexit requires Hard Unionism. The GFA requires very Soft Unionism. A 3.8% UK wide winning margin in which two of the four nations voted Remain doesn't support the Hard Unionism needed for Hard Brexit. We always focus on Brexiters delusions re the UK/EU power imbalance but their delusion re the intra UK power imbalance is equally blind. The two nations which voted Remain are the two with credible options to secede. Which leads to us the real power imbalance. Between what Brexiters think 51.9% once 2.5 years ago entitles them to and the real power exchange rate those votes buy them now.
0 -
What price taking back control?RobD said:
Just because they don't want it to happen doesn't mean it won't happen.anothernick said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I have understood today's events correctly the government has committed itself to spending £2bn to implement a policy which the government itself does not support, and which most ministers and MPs believe would be disastrous.
Meanwhile police numbers continue to shrink, the homeless become ever more obvious on our streets and the poor queue for foodbanks.0 -
Kellner on second referendum polling - https://infacts.org/polling-shows-growing-support-for-staying-in-eu/
But in a referendum between staying in the EU and leaving on the terms that the government has negotiated, staying enjoys an 18-point lead: 59-41%.
Counting only those who say they are certain to vote in a “no Brexit” versus “May’s deal” referendum, staying in the EU currently leads by 63-37%. An 18-point lead among all voters therefore widens eight points to 26% among those certain to vote.0 -
Indeed. Spot on.MikeSmithson said:
Great analysisYellow_Submarine said:Hard Brexit requires Hard Unionism. The GFA requires very Soft Unionism. A 3.8% UK wide winning margin in which two of the four nations voted Remain doesn't support the Hard Unionism needed for Hard Brexit. We always focus on Brexiters delusions re the UK/EU power imbalance but their delusion re the intra UK power imbalance is equally blind. The two nations which voted Remain are the two with credible options to secede. Which leads to us the real power imbalance. Between what Brexiters think 51.9% once 2.5 years ago entitles them to and the real power exchange rate those votes buy them now.
0 -
I was thinking, if the UK government is really serious about preserving the Union, whether it might take advantage of the need to substantially rebuild the Houses of Parliament by moving the centre of the government to somewhere on the Anglo-Scottish border. Berwick as a British version of "DC" would be symbolic, if a little small. Then spread out the Whitehall departments into suitable towns and cities around both sides of the border. Aside from the pros of selling off some prime real estate, no need to pay "London weighting" to thousands of civil servants and forcing MPs to see a wee bit more of the country on their travels, it would somewhat blunt SNP attacks on the far-away London government if they were at, and even straddling, the border.Black_Rook said:
There's no particular reason why an asymmetric federation couldn't work, so long as the balance of powers between the constituent parts was right. In our case, it would need to be loose, the four parts agreeing that there was sufficient mutual interest in terms of a community guaranteeing freedom of movement and settlement and no hard internal frontiers, a shared defence and security capacity and a common currency, whilst retaining broad freedom of action with respect to internal affairs (such that the smaller members would not feel dominated, and England would not feel that its much larger population fell under an excessive, undemocratic degree of influence from its partners.)RobD said:There are fifty states. That comparison would be more appropriate if the US consisted of California, Wyoming, and the two Dakotas.
...
But anyway, that's enough theorising for now.
A pointlessly expensive exercise if Scotland votes to secede anyway, of course. But if you were thinking big, and you really, really wanted the Union to work (let's say it's part of the name of your party, for example) then perhaps that's the kind of thing you should be considering...0 -
Indeed.anothernick said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I have understood today's events correctly the government has committed itself to spending £2bn to implement a policy which the government itself does not support, and which most ministers and MPs believe would be disastrous.Anazina said:
Whereas fixing Brexit costs a fucking fortune.RoyalBlue said:
Fixing socialism is always expensive.sarissa said:
So roughly 7-8% of cumulative GDP? Sounds like the Irish are getting a bargain!John_M said:
No figures to hand, but the aggregate number to 2011 was ~ 2 trillion euros.sarissa said:
What was the equivalent GDP % for Germany’s reunification?John_M said:
There was a very good article in the FT a couple of weeks ago outlining that it might very well be possible for the RoI to absorb NI.AmpfieldAndy said:
If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances andnatio al debt.williamglenn said:
The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.AmpfieldAndy said:There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.
Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.
Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).
https://www.ft.com/content/7d5244a0-f22d-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9d0d
To summarise, the RoI would need to find around 4% of its GDP. That seems like a relatively small price to pay for a united Ireland.
NI demographics are also running the nationalists' way. The proportion of young Catholics to Protestants is 45:34. There will be an absolute Catholic majority by 2030.
Partition has been an economic disaster for the six counties. RoI incomes are around 70% higher now, where they were roughly at parity in the 1980s.
Now, as we've seen from Brexit, economics aren't everything. However, there are now some good arguments for moderate Unionists to consider. The RoI is no longer a quasi-theocracy.
.
Meanwhile police numbers continue to shrink, the homeless become ever more obvious on our streets and the poor queue for foodbanks.0 -
None of which changes the simple fact that the residents of Scotland, NI and Gibraltar are leaving the EU against their wishes. That has political implications even though nobody is disputing that it was a UK wide vote.Nemtynakht said:
NI voted as part of UK, and bound to that decision. The voters voted as part of the citizenship in U.K. rather than residency in NI I.e. for Stormont elections.Anazina said:
NI did vote, and voted to remain.Omnium said:
NI didn't vote. The UK did. The vote counts across the UK only.Anazina said:
NI voted to RemainAmpfieldAndy said:
If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances and national debt.williamglenn said:
The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.AmpfieldAndy said:There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.
Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.
Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).
0 -
I am looking forward to my fucking letter from the government telling me to prepare for No Deal Brexit. Jesus wept.0
-
Some are some aren't. IIRC 40% of Scotland voted leave. They also voted to stay on the UK.OllyT said:
None of which changes the simple fact that the residents of Scotland, NI and Gibraltar are leaving the EU against their wishes. That has political implications even though nobody is disputing that it was a UK wide vote.Nemtynakht said:
NI voted as part of UK, and bound to that decision. The voters voted as part of the citizenship in U.K. rather than residency in NI I.e. for Stormont elections.Anazina said:
NI did vote, and voted to remain.Omnium said:
NI didn't vote. The UK did. The vote counts across the UK only.Anazina said:
NI voted to RemainAmpfieldAndy said:
If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances and national debt.williamglenn said:
The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.AmpfieldAndy said:There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.
Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.
Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).
If the people of Scotland want to leave the UK and Joi the EU then we can.
It's now an either / or situation. Polls consistently show staying in the UK is more important.0 -
asjohnstone said:
Some are some aren't. IIRC 40% of Scotland voted leave. They also voted to stay on the UK.
If the people of Scotland want to leave the UK and Joi the EU then we can.
It's now an either / or situation. Polls consistently show staying in the UK is more important.
The latest PanelBase poll is
With no deal:
Indy 59%
UK 41%
With a deal:
Indy 53%
UK 47%
0 -
Perhaps Birmingham could be the gleaming capital of Eurosceptica, with regional offices in Hartlepool and Scunthorpe?Wulfrun_Phil said:
The West Midlands did vote, and voted to leave. Your point?Anazina said:
NI did vote, and voted to remain.Omnium said:
NI didn't vote. The UK did. The vote counts across the UK only.Anazina said:
NI voted to RemainAmpfieldAndy said:
If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances and national debt.williamglenn said:
The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.AmpfieldAndy said:There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.
Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.
Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).0 -
What percentage of Scots voted to remain in the UK but out of the EU?asjohnstone said:
Some are some aren't. IIRC 40% of Scotland voted leave. They also voted to stay on the UK.OllyT said:
None of which changes the simple fact that the residents of Scotland, NI and Gibraltar are leaving the EU against their wishes. That has political implications even though nobody is disputing that it was a UK wide vote.Nemtynakht said:
NI voted as part of UK, and bound to that decision. The voters voted as part of the citizenship in U.K. rather than residency in NI I.e. for Stormont elections.Anazina said:
NI did vote, and voted to remain.Omnium said:
NI didn't vote. The UK did. The vote counts across the UK only.Anazina said:
NI voted to RemainAmpfieldAndy said:
If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances and national debt.williamglenn said:
The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.AmpfieldAndy said:There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.
Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.
Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).
If the people of Scotland want to leave the UK and Joi the EU then we can.
It's now an either / or situation. Polls consistently show staying in the UK is more important.0 -
Well quite, it is incredibly transparent as well. Of all the complaints that deserve to be levelled at the government, and there are many, this is not one of them. Despite their best efforts parliament might be such a mess that, gods forbid, no deal could occur. They should do no preparation at all because there are indeed paths to avoid no deal, so no worries? It's precisely the attitude that what we don't want will not happen that has had such little preparation for Brexit as it is, that is not a good thing.glw said:
The people complaining that the government is preparing for Hard Brexit would complain if the government did not prepare. I hope the government ignores them.RobD said:Just because they don't want it to happen doesn't mean it won't happen.
Fortunately there are now ways to avoid no deal which are easier than was the case before, but when the government is criticised for not adequately preparing for contingencies and criticised for preparing for those contingencies, I think it pretty obvious who is being unreasonable. Particularly when they pretend that preparing for something is the same as endorsing that option, or pretend that not 'wasting' money on a very real outcome would not be criticised.
I'd rather the country remain than no deal, but we do need to be prepared for no deal as best we can.
No one disputes the fact of a UK wide vote, but they do frequently assert that it is unfair that they are leaving which is not the case because this is a union after all. As you point out, that there are political implications to them leaving against their wishes, very serious implications, is absolutely correct. But plenty of people act as though it is an undemocratic absurdity that the constituent parts of the UK collectively bear the brunt of a UK wide decision. Some of those parts might not want to do so any longer and even leave the UK, but that UK wide things affect all the UK is not itself unreasonableOllyT said:
None of which changes the simple fact that the residents of Scotland, NI and Gibraltar are leaving the EU against their wishes. That has political implications even though nobody is disputing that it was a UK wide vote.0 -
It's bluff. Only about 100 out of 650 MPs support no deal. That fact alone makes it very, very unlikely. After all, Parliament is sovereign and it has taken back control.Anazina said:I am looking forward to my fucking letter from the government telling me to prepare for No Deal Brexit. Jesus wept.
0 -
Is that the same poll that it turned out included a lot of ineligible voters and if they counted only eligible voters it was 50-50?williamglenn said:Kellner on second referendum polling - https://infacts.org/polling-shows-growing-support-for-staying-in-eu/
But in a referendum between staying in the EU and leaving on the terms that the government has negotiated, staying enjoys an 18-point lead: 59-41%.
Counting only those who say they are certain to vote in a “no Brexit” versus “May’s deal” referendum, staying in the EU currently leads by 63-37%. An 18-point lead among all voters therefore widens eight points to 26% among those certain to vote.0 -
It is.MikeSmithson said:
Great analysisYellow_Submarine said:Hard Brexit requires Hard Unionism. The GFA requires very Soft Unionism. A 3.8% UK wide winning margin in which two of the four nations voted Remain doesn't support the Hard Unionism needed for Hard Brexit. We always focus on Brexiters delusions re the UK/EU power imbalance but their delusion re the intra UK power imbalance is equally blind. The two nations which voted Remain are the two with credible options to secede. Which leads to us the real power imbalance. Between what Brexiters think 51.9% once 2.5 years ago entitles them to and the real power exchange rate those votes buy them now.
0 -
No, this is a YouGov poll with a representative sample.Donny43 said:
Is that the same poll that it turned out included a lot of ineligible voters and if they counted only eligible voters it was 50-50?williamglenn said:Kellner on second referendum polling - https://infacts.org/polling-shows-growing-support-for-staying-in-eu/
But in a referendum between staying in the EU and leaving on the terms that the government has negotiated, staying enjoys an 18-point lead: 59-41%.
Counting only those who say they are certain to vote in a “no Brexit” versus “May’s deal” referendum, staying in the EU currently leads by 63-37%. An 18-point lead among all voters therefore widens eight points to 26% among those certain to vote.0 -
The Lib Dem’s, SNP and Greens have tabled a VONC in the government. Does this have the same weight?0
-
It's not guaranteed to be get parliamentary time immediately unless Labour back it.chloe said:The Lib Dem’s, SNP and Greens have tabled a VONC in the government. Does this have the same weight?
Interestingly I presume the government could still let it take place. If they do, it shows they want to push Labour off the fence on Brexit.0 -
Dispiriting, though while the positive aspects of the union should be centre stage, I do hope at the next SindyRef (for such is inevitable while the SNP remain such a large political force) no one pretends even for a second that disentangling things will be easy. In fairness there seemed less suggestion that there would be no disruption at all, and a bit more acceptance there would be though the degree was disputed, and definitely if it was a price worth paying was disputed.williamglenn said:asjohnstone said:Some are some aren't. IIRC 40% of Scotland voted leave. They also voted to stay on the UK.
If the people of Scotland want to leave the UK and Joi the EU then we can.
It's now an either / or situation. Polls consistently show staying in the UK is more important.
The latest PanelBase poll is
With no deal:
Indy 59%
UK 41%
With a deal:
Indy 53%
UK 47%0 -
-
Mad idea: could we both solve national devolution and House of Lords reform simultaneously by reconstituting the House of Lords to have 25% representation from each nation (either appointed, elected or a combination)?RoyalBlue said:Treating the constituent countries of the U.K. as equivalent for constitutional purposes is a nonsense when England contains 85% of the population. There is no good reason why English votes should be worth much less than those in the other countries.
I think our ‘deep state’ is uniquely relaxed about its own disintegration.0 -
The whole thing is becoming absurd . The UK is a laughing stock.0
-
-
It’s quite an elaborate and expensive bluff - but could help create a feeling of a winter of discontent, along with possibly awful Q4 retail data and cold weather thanks to the sudden stratospheric warming. I suppose madness and genius are two sides of the same arse.anothernick said:
It's bluff. Only about 100 out of 650 MPs support no deal. That fact alone makes it very, very unlikely. After all, Parliament is sovereign and it has taken back control.Anazina said:I am looking forward to my fucking letter from the government telling me to prepare for No Deal Brexit. Jesus wept.
0 -
Getting pretty decisive now, the leave side have blown it - unless parliament as a whole pivots to the deal or no deal (neither of which is plausible), there may have been too much chaos and too much trashing of the agreed deal to rescue it in the eyes of the public if they hand it over to the public and try to salvage some kind of Brexit now.williamglenn said:Kellner on second referendum polling - https://infacts.org/polling-shows-growing-support-for-staying-in-eu/
But in a referendum between staying in the EU and leaving on the terms that the government has negotiated, staying enjoys an 18-point lead: 59-41%.
Counting only those who say they are certain to vote in a “no Brexit” versus “May’s deal” referendum, staying in the EU currently leads by 63-37%. An 18-point lead among all voters therefore widens eight points to 26% among those certain to vote.0 -
The current consensus is that Bercow holds to the view that while anyone can table FTPA compliant VoNC motions only the official opposition can move them. In plain english that motion has the power to no confidence the government but won't get parliamentry time for a debate and a vote.chloe said:The Lib Dem’s, SNP and Greens have tabled a VONC in the government. Does this have the same weight?
0 -
Well duh. The whole world is talking about Mou. Stupid tweet.Danny565 said:0 -
May's strongest political belief seems to be a dislike of immigrants.Gallowgate said:0 -
Some cogent points well madeYellow_Submarine said:Hard Brexit requires Hard Unionism. The GFA requires very Soft Unionism. A 3.8% UK wide winning margin in which two of the four nations voted Remain doesn't support the Hard Unionism needed for Hard Brexit. We always focus on Brexiters delusions re the UK/EU power imbalance but their delusion re the intra UK power imbalance is equally blind. The two nations which voted Remain are the two with credible options to secede. Which leads to us the real power imbalance. Between what Brexiters think 51.9% once 2.5 years ago entitles them to and the real power exchange rate those votes buy them now.
0 -
BBC News is 100% better when Laura K is away. I flicked over to find her gone. Can she go on holiday more often?0
-
Except it isn’t because Laura is a fine journalist who has done well to get where she is.Anazina said:BBC News is 100% better when Laura K is away. I flicked over to find her gone. Can she go on holiday more often?
0 -
It sounds like a dystopian Love Actually where Huge Grant goes to Heathrow and blocks enterance to the immigrant half of couples in time for Christmas.Gallowgate said:0 -
It's been put forward before, Labour alluded to something similar in 2015 manifestoEndillion said:
Mad idea: could we both solve national devolution and House of Lords reform simultaneously by reconstituting the House of Lords to have 25% representation from each nation (either appointed, elected or a combination)?RoyalBlue said:Treating the constituent countries of the U.K. as equivalent for constitutional purposes is a nonsense when England contains 85% of the population. There is no good reason why English votes should be worth much less than those in the other countries.
I think our ‘deep state’ is uniquely relaxed about its own disintegration.0 -
Nope. She is a mediocre to poor journalist. More spin than scoop, 90% of the time.Gallowgate said:
Except it isn’t because Laura is a fine journalist who has done well to get where she is.Anazina said:BBC News is 100% better when Laura K is away. I flicked over to find her gone. Can she go on holiday more often?
0 -
Again with this laughing stock stuff, I don't know why it concerns people so much. Periods of intense and divisive politics will lead to plenty for others to make fun of, and every nation gets their turn at being mocked at some point. People make such a big deal of it as though the mere fact of mockery means you should turn aside from a particular position, when it is quite possible what is right for one nation is going to be of amusement to others.nico67 said:The whole thing is becoming absurd . The UK is a laughing stock.
I'm much more concerned about the instability of our politics because of an unwillingness for fanatics to compromise affecting recovery than I am that talk shows overseas get some amusement out of political drama.0 -
I'm not sure that your suggestion that you know my desires better than I do has a great deal of credibility. In fact I think its rather rude.williamglenn said:
You asked what I imagine about what you may want and I answered based on this discussion. The question mark indicated that I was seeking clarification from you given that presumably you have a better idea about what you want than I do, but apparently not.Omnium said:
I'm not sure you have any idea of what I may want. In fact I'm sure that you don't. But do tell me precisely what it is that I may want so that I can catch up.williamglenn said:
The fact that it cannot be delivered in the way that you want on a UK-wide basis?Omnium said:
It is and was a majority UK-wide issue. What do you imagine I might not like from that conclusion?williamglenn said:
The amendment to ensure the referendum required each nation to approve Brexit was dismissed on the basis that the referendum was advisory, therefore if you want to treat it as a majoritarian UK-wide issue, you need to deal with the consequences that flow from that.Omnium said:
NI didn't vote. The UK did. The vote counts across the UK only.Anazina said:
NI voted to RemainAmpfieldAndy said:
If a border poll is what NI wants, then they should have a border poll. That’s democracy. Of course the ROI might have something to say about that given the woeful state of their public finances and national debt.williamglenn said:
The government is obliged to call a border poll if they believe there is a majority for unification. Under 'no deal', there would be.AmpfieldAndy said:There is no valid reason why technology can’t prevent the need for a hard border. It’s only ROI and EU intransigence that prevents it and that can only be, as Selmayr said the other day, that losing NI is the price the EU are demanding for a negotiated exit.
Frankly, it’s not a price worth paying for a deal.
Neither alters the fact that the U.K. voted to Leave the EU and that’s what the U.K. needs to do (not just GB).
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-06-16/debates/15061658000001/europeanunionreferendumbill
I can't see what you're referring to at all, but equally I'm entirely happy to concede that I may have been interpreting your comments in a way that they weren't intended, and I guess you may have done so with mine. I'm more than happy to apologise for the slightest of misinterpretations that I may have made on your posts.
0 -
Gallowgate said:
Well duh. The whole world is talking about Mou. Stupid tweet.Danny565 said:
I was surprised to see the story on the front page of tonight’s Standard. A sports story about a club 200 miles away.0 -
It is interesting that the GFA makes absolutely no mention of the border between Northern and Southern Ireland but does affirm explicitly that Northern Ireland should remain part of the UK until a vote by its people to change its status. As such it would appear that it is the backstop rather than any threat of a border that is breaking both the letter and spirit of the GFA.ydoethur said:
I do wonder if the EU is being recklessly complacent in forgetting the Loyalist paramilitary groups and their potential reaction. It wasn't just the IRA that went around killing people.Philip_Thompson said:The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland voted peacefully and democratically to Leave the European Union.
Therefore the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should Leave the European Union.
The EU attempts to annex a part of our country undemocratically are risking the very sectarian violence it is supposed to prevent. As well as being an undemocratic abomination.
The solution is simple. Both sides agreeing a temporary can kicking transition agreement with nothing permanent agreed. Then work together in the spirit of the GFA to create something imaginative.
Not some blunt hammer smashing peoples rights.0 -
A Senate of the Nations/Regions I believe they called it. Was to be part of discussions in a grand constitutional convention I believe, one of Ed M's decentish ideas.Freggles said:
It's been put forward before, Labour alluded to something similar in 2015 manifestoEndillion said:
Mad idea: could we both solve national devolution and House of Lords reform simultaneously by reconstituting the House of Lords to have 25% representation from each nation (either appointed, elected or a combination)?RoyalBlue said:Treating the constituent countries of the U.K. as equivalent for constitutional purposes is a nonsense when England contains 85% of the population. There is no good reason why English votes should be worth much less than those in the other countries.
I think our ‘deep state’ is uniquely relaxed about its own disintegration.0 -
So they did. ThanksFreggles said:
It's been put forward before, Labour alluded to something similar in 2015 manifestoEndillion said:
Mad idea: could we both solve national devolution and House of Lords reform simultaneously by reconstituting the House of Lords to have 25% representation from each nation (either appointed, elected or a combination)?RoyalBlue said:Treating the constituent countries of the U.K. as equivalent for constitutional purposes is a nonsense when England contains 85% of the population. There is no good reason why English votes should be worth much less than those in the other countries.
I think our ‘deep state’ is uniquely relaxed about its own disintegration.0 -
This is one area TM and I are not on the same page along with the tens of thousands pledge. In any successful economy we need immigration and making it difficult is anti businessYellow_Submarine said:
It sounds like a dystopian Love Actually where Huge Grant goes to Heathrow and blocks enterance to the immigrant half of couples in time for Christmas.Gallowgate said:
However, when and if we arrive at brexit, the rules on immigration will follow TM handing over0 -
It's a possibility, but even if the Government were to contemplate such a move would it do so now?williamglenn said:
It's not guaranteed to be get parliamentary time immediately unless Labour back it.chloe said:The Lib Dem’s, SNP and Greens have tabled a VONC in the government. Does this have the same weight?
Interestingly I presume the government could still let it take place. If they do, it shows they want to push Labour off the fence on Brexit.
As we've seen today, at least one Tory MP has suggested he could resign the whip and potentially bring down his own Government if May's official policy position became No Deal. It's suspected that others might be similarly inclined. Once you've made noises off like that, it's but a short step to crossing the Rubicon and voting to bring down the Government to prevent it from pivoting to No Deal, if you suspect that it might intend to do so.
The numbers of MPs involved are liable to be very small, but so is the Tory-DUP majority.
May might therefore wish to avoid a VoNC before late January, in order to discourage disloyalty: if Tory MPs choose to abandon their party after that point then they would no longer have the time needed to force a General Election, and for one to be held and a new Parliament and Government to be constituted, before Brexit Day. So if they wanted to revolt and attempt to overturn Brexit (which is presumably what this wing of the Conservative Party would ultimately like to achieve) then they'll have to explicitly vote to put Corbyn into power, and keep their fingers crossed that he'd be more obliging. This would probably put paid to any (already slim) chance they would have of salvaging their careers, for example through creating a centre-right equivalent of the SDP breakaway.0 -
She's first class. The best since John Cole.Anazina said:
Nope. She is a mediocre to poor journalist. More spin than scoop, 90% of the time.Gallowgate said:
Except it isn’t because Laura is a fine journalist who has done well to get where she is.Anazina said:BBC News is 100% better when Laura K is away. I flicked over to find her gone. Can she go on holiday more often?
0 -
I am assuming that this in the context of leaving the House of Commons with approximately its current powers and composition, and just replacing the Lords?kle4 said:
A Senate of the Nations/Regions I believe they called it. Was to be part of discussions in a grand constitutional convention I believe, one of Ed M's decentish ideas.Freggles said:
It's been put forward before, Labour alluded to something similar in 2015 manifestoEndillion said:
Mad idea: could we both solve national devolution and House of Lords reform simultaneously by reconstituting the House of Lords to have 25% representation from each nation (either appointed, elected or a combination)?RoyalBlue said:Treating the constituent countries of the U.K. as equivalent for constitutional purposes is a nonsense when England contains 85% of the population. There is no good reason why English votes should be worth much less than those in the other countries.
I think our ‘deep state’ is uniquely relaxed about its own disintegration.
That being the case, it would be at best futile and at worst counter-productive. Give such a body real teeth and it would make Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland too powerful relative to England. De-fang it and it becomes a worthless talking shop.0 -
A poor journalist I’m afraid.Omnium said:
She's first class. The best since John Cole.Anazina said:
Nope. She is a mediocre to poor journalist. More spin than scoop, 90% of the time.Gallowgate said:
Except it isn’t because Laura is a fine journalist who has done well to get where she is.Anazina said:BBC News is 100% better when Laura K is away. I flicked over to find her gone. Can she go on holiday more often?
0 -
You keep saying this without any explanation or evidence. Why do you think she’s a poor journo?Anazina said:
A poor journalist I’m afraid.Omnium said:
She's first class. The best since John Cole.Anazina said:
Nope. She is a mediocre to poor journalist. More spin than scoop, 90% of the time.Gallowgate said:
Except it isn’t because Laura is a fine journalist who has done well to get where she is.Anazina said:BBC News is 100% better when Laura K is away. I flicked over to find her gone. Can she go on holiday more often?
0 -
You said that, and I disagreed. I still disagree. Perhaps you'd tell us who is a good journalist in comparison?Anazina said:
A poor journalist I’m afraid.Omnium said:
She's first class. The best since John Cole.Anazina said:
Nope. She is a mediocre to poor journalist. More spin than scoop, 90% of the time.Gallowgate said:
Except it isn’t because Laura is a fine journalist who has done well to get where she is.Anazina said:BBC News is 100% better when Laura K is away. I flicked over to find her gone. Can she go on holiday more often?
0 -
Compared to Beth Rigby on Sky, Laura K is Richard Dimbleby.Omnium said:
She's first class. The best since John Cole.Anazina said:
Nope. She is a mediocre to poor journalist. More spin than scoop, 90% of the time.Gallowgate said:
Except it isn’t because Laura is a fine journalist who has done well to get where she is.Anazina said:BBC News is 100% better when Laura K is away. I flicked over to find her gone. Can she go on holiday more often?
0 -
I meant the idea of a convention was a decentish idea (though it would probably have just been a talking shop), not the senate idea. I'm not certain of the best approach for the upper chamber, as I do think there are benefits (which could be improved) for at least some level of appointment in the upper chamber.Black_Rook said:
I am assuming that this in the context of leaving the House of Commons with approximately its current powers and composition, and just replacing the Lords?kle4 said:
A Senate of the Nations/Regions I believe they called it. Was to be part of discussions in a grand constitutional convention I believe, one of Ed M's decentish ideas.Freggles said:
It's been put forward before, Labour alluded to something similar in 2015 manifestoEndillion said:
Mad idea: could we both solve national devolution and House of Lords reform simultaneously by reconstituting the House of Lords to have 25% representation from each nation (either appointed, elected or a combination)?RoyalBlue said:Treating the constituent countries of the U.K. as equivalent for constitutional purposes is a nonsense when England contains 85% of the population. There is no good reason why English votes should be worth much less than those in the other countries.
I think our ‘deep state’ is uniquely relaxed about its own disintegration.
That being the case, it would be at best futile and at worst counter-productive. Give such a body real teeth and it would make Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland too powerful relative to England. De-fang it and it becomes a worthless talking shop.
My usual suggestions included people losing their seat if they do not attend X number of votes within a period of Y (on the basis that while we want diverse appointment including those not usually of a political bent it is still an important function they should perform), no leaping from commons to the lords for a period of X (on the basis that it is not meant to be a nice retirement present but a place for genuine grandees who still have much to contribute and have proven this with efforts outside politics, and so on.0 -
Well most of their fans live in the south east, so fair enough.Anazina said:Gallowgate said:
Well duh. The whole world is talking about Mou. Stupid tweet.Danny565 said:
I was surprised to see the story on the front page of tonight’s Standard. A sports story about a club 200 miles away.
One paragraph on page 47 of the Manchester Evening News.0 -
I would have thought just before Christmas was the safest time for them.Black_Rook said:
It's a possibility, but even if the Government were to contemplate such a move would it do so now?williamglenn said:
It's not guaranteed to be get parliamentary time immediately unless Labour back it.chloe said:The Lib Dem’s, SNP and Greens have tabled a VONC in the government. Does this have the same weight?
Interestingly I presume the government could still let it take place. If they do, it shows they want to push Labour off the fence on Brexit.0 -
I might have got the wrong end of the stick about your initial question but I've never meant to suggest I know your desires better than you do.Omnium said:
I'm not sure that your suggestion that you know my desires better than I do has a great deal of credibility. In fact I think its rather rude.williamglenn said:
You asked what I imagine about what you may want and I answered based on this discussion. The question mark indicated that I was seeking clarification from you given that presumably you have a better idea about what you want than I do, but apparently not.Omnium said:
I'm not sure you have any idea of what I may want. In fact I'm sure that you don't. But do tell me precisely what it is that I may want so that I can catch up.williamglenn said:
The fact that it cannot be delivered in the way that you want on a UK-wide basis?Omnium said:It is and was a majority UK-wide issue. What do you imagine I might not like from that conclusion?
I can't see what you're referring to at all, but equally I'm entirely happy to concede that I may have been interpreting your comments in a way that they weren't intended, and I guess you may have done so with mine. I'm more than happy to apologise for the slightest of misinterpretations that I may have made on your posts.0 -
Probably her massive anti-Corbyn bias.Mortimer said:
You keep saying this without any explanation or evidence. Why do you think she’s a poor journo?Anazina said:
A poor journalist I’m afraid.Omnium said:
She's first class. The best since John Cole.Anazina said:
Nope. She is a mediocre to poor journalist. More spin than scoop, 90% of the time.Gallowgate said:
Except it isn’t because Laura is a fine journalist who has done well to get where she is.Anazina said:BBC News is 100% better when Laura K is away. I flicked over to find her gone. Can she go on holiday more often?
0 -
The list is too long to even properly begin here. Michael Crick, Jon Pienaar, John Simpson, Polly Toynbee, Emily Maitlis - do I really need to continue?Omnium said:
You said that, and I disagreed. I still disagree. Perhaps you'd tell us who is a good journalist in comparison?Anazina said:
A poor journalist I’m afraid.Omnium said:
She's first class. The best since John Cole.Anazina said:
Nope. She is a mediocre to poor journalist. More spin than scoop, 90% of the time.Gallowgate said:
Except it isn’t because Laura is a fine journalist who has done well to get where she is.Anazina said:BBC News is 100% better when Laura K is away. I flicked over to find her gone. Can she go on holiday more often?
0 -
It would have a lot more weight if the DUP put their name to it too.chloe said:The Lib Dem’s, SNP and Greens have tabled a VONC in the government. Does this have the same weight?
0 -
Easiest thing to do with the upper house, given that nobody can agree on what it should look like, is to get rid of it. But I would say that: one way to sweeten the pill of an English Parliament (i.e. a lot more elected politicians) would be to get rid of an even larger body of unelected ones, as well as shrinking the House of Commons in line with what would then be its greatly reduced range of responsibilities.kle4 said:
I meant the idea of a convention was a decentish idea (though it would probably have just been a talking shop), not the senate idea. I'm not certain of the best approach for the upper chamber, as I do think there are benefits (which could be improved) for at least some level of appointment in the upper chamber.Black_Rook said:
I am assuming that this in the context of leaving the House of Commons with approximately its current powers and composition, and just replacing the Lords?kle4 said:
A Senate of the Nations/Regions I believe they called it. Was to be part of discussions in a grand constitutional convention I believe, one of Ed M's decentish ideas.Freggles said:
It's been put forward before, Labour alluded to something similar in 2015 manifestoEndillion said:
Mad idea: could we both solve national devolution and House of Lords reform simultaneously by reconstituting the House of Lords to have 25% representation from each nation (either appointed, elected or a combination)?RoyalBlue said:Treating the constituent countries of the U.K. as equivalent for constitutional purposes is a nonsense when England contains 85% of the population. There is no good reason why English votes should be worth much less than those in the other countries.
I think our ‘deep state’ is uniquely relaxed about its own disintegration.
That being the case, it would be at best futile and at worst counter-productive. Give such a body real teeth and it would make Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland too powerful relative to England. De-fang it and it becomes a worthless talking shop.
My usual suggestions included people losing their seat if they do not attend X number of votes within a period of Y (on the basis that while we want diverse appointment including those not usually of a political bent it is still an important function they should perform), no leaping from commons to the lords for a period of X (on the basis that it is not meant to be a nice retirement present but a place for genuine grandees who still have much to contribute and have proven this with efforts outside politics, and so on.0 -
No harm done. I have a vague inkling that there are matters afoot of more importance than our mutual interpretation of the psychology behind one-another's comments.williamglenn said:
I might have got the wrong end of the stick about your initial question but I've never meant to suggest I know your desires better than you do.Omnium said:
I'm not sure that your suggestion that you know my desires better than I do has a great deal of credibility. In fact I think its rather rude.williamglenn said:
You asked what I imagine about what you may want and I answered based on this discussion. The question mark indicated that I was seeking clarification from you given that presumably you have a better idea about what you want than I do, but apparently not.Omnium said:
I'm not sure you have any idea of what I may want. In fact I'm sure that you don't. But do tell me precisely what it is that I may want so that I can catch up.williamglenn said:
The fact that it cannot be delivered in the way that you want on a UK-wide basis?Omnium said:It is and was a majority UK-wide issue. What do you imagine I might not like from that conclusion?
I can't see what you're referring to at all, but equally I'm entirely happy to concede that I may have been interpreting your comments in a way that they weren't intended, and I guess you may have done so with mine. I'm more than happy to apologise for the slightest of misinterpretations that I may have made on your posts.0 -
Mortimer said:
You keep saying this without any explanation or evidence. Why do you think she’s a poor journo?Anazina said:
A poor journalist I’m afraid.Omnium said:
She's first class. The best since John Cole.Anazina said:
Nope. She is a mediocre to poor journalist. More spin than scoop, 90% of the time.Gallowgate said:
Except it isn’t because Laura is a fine journalist who has done well to get where she is.Anazina said:BBC News is 100% better when Laura K is away. I flicked over to find her gone. Can she go on holiday more often?
She rarely, if ever, gets a good story. And when she does, she fucks it up.Mortimer said:
You keep saying this without any explanation or evidence. Why do you think she’s a poor journo?Anazina said:
A poor journalist I’m afraid.Omnium said:
She's first class. The best since John Cole.Anazina said:
Nope. She is a mediocre to poor journalist. More spin than scoop, 90% of the time.Gallowgate said:
Except it isn’t because Laura is a fine journalist who has done well to get where she is.Anazina said:BBC News is 100% better when Laura K is away. I flicked over to find her gone. Can she go on holiday more often?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/entertainment-arts-38666914
This is so egregious an example, I’m surprised it didn’t have greater consequences for her.0 -
Could be constituted as follows.kle4 said:
A Senate of the Nations/Regions I believe they called it. Was to be part of discussions in a grand constitutional convention I believe, one of Ed M's decentish ideas.Freggles said:
It's been put forward before, Labour alluded to something similar in 2015 manifestoEndillion said:
Mad idea: could we both solve national devolution and House of Lords reform simultaneously by reconstituting the House of Lords to have 25% representation from each nation (either appointed, elected or a combination)?RoyalBlue said:Treating the constituent countries of the U.K. as equivalent for constitutional purposes is a nonsense when England contains 85% of the population. There is no good reason why English votes should be worth much less than those in the other countries.
I think our ‘deep state’ is uniquely relaxed about its own disintegration.
NI 18
Wales 30
Scotland 52
in line with population .
Then 99 for England ie, not a majority .0 -
Richard_Tyndall said:
Compared to Beth Rigby on Sky, Laura K is Richard Dimbleby.Omnium said:
She's first class. The best since John Cole.Anazina said:
Nope. She is a mediocre to poor journalist. More spin than scoop, 90% of the time.Gallowgate said:
Except it isn’t because Laura is a fine journalist who has done well to get where she is.Anazina said:BBC News is 100% better when Laura K is away. I flicked over to find her gone. Can she go on holiday more often?
You are damning her with very faint praise there Richard!0 -
Thank you.Omnium said:I agree mostly.
You miss the point though. And that is 'Philip_Thompson's idea'.
It's good. Might not be perfect, but it's good.0 -
Well technically the easiest thing to do if you cannot agree on something is to do nothing (as May is testing to its limits) but point taken.Black_Rook said:
Easiest thing to do with the upper house, given that nobody can agree on what it should look like, is to get rid of itkle4 said:
I meant the idea of a convention was a decentish idea (though it would probably have just been a talking shop), not the senate idea. I'm not certain of the best approach for the upper chamber, as I do think there are benefits (which could be improved) for at least some level of appointment in the upper chamber.Black_Rook said:
I am assuming that this in the context of leaving the House of Commons with approximately its current powers and composition, and just replacing the Lords?kle4 said:
A Senate of the Nations/Regions I believe they called it. Was to be part of discussions in a grand constitutional convention I believe, one of Ed M's decentish ideas.Freggles said:
It's been put forward before, Labour alluded to something similar in 2015 manifestoEndillion said:
Mad idea: could we both solve national devolution and House of Lords reform simultaneously by reconstituting the House of Lords to have 25% representation from each nation (either appointed, elected or a combination)?RoyalBlue said:Treating the constituent countries of the U.K. as equivalent for constitutional purposes is a nonsense when England contains 85% of the population. There is no good reason why English votes should be worth much less than those in the other countries.
I think our ‘deep state’ is uniquely relaxed about its own disintegration.
That being the case, it would be at best futile and at worst counter-productive. Give such a body real teeth and it would make Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland too powerful relative to England. De-fang it and it becomes a worthless talking shop.
My usual suggestions included people losing their seat if they do not attend X number of votes within a period of Y (on the basis that while we want diverse appointment including those not usually of a political bent it is still an important function they should perform), no leaping from commons to the lords for a period of X (on the basis that it is not meant to be a nice retirement present but a place for genuine grandees who still have much to contribute and have proven this with efforts outside politics, and so on.
Coming up to year 20 since the 'temporary' position of retaining some hereditary peers.0 -
I find her compelling and she has an almost unique talent among political editors of not appearing over self awareAnazina said:
Nope. She is a mediocre to poor journalist. More spin than scoop, 90% of the time.Gallowgate said:
Except it isn’t because Laura is a fine journalist who has done well to get where she is.Anazina said:BBC News is 100% better when Laura K is away. I flicked over to find her gone. Can she go on holiday more often?
0 -
Thanks for the answer.Anazina said:Mortimer said:
You keep saying this without any explanation or evidence. Why do you think she’s a poor journo?Anazina said:
A poor journalist I’m afraid.Omnium said:
She's first class. The best since John Cole.Anazina said:
Nope. She is a mediocre to poor journalist. More spin than scoop, 90% of the time.Gallowgate said:
Except it isn’t because Laura is a fine journalist who has done well to get where she is.Anazina said:BBC News is 100% better when Laura K is away. I flicked over to find her gone. Can she go on holiday more often?
She rarely, if ever, gets a good story. And when she does, she fucks it up.Mortimer said:
You keep saying this without any explanation or evidence. Why do you think she’s a poor journo?Anazina said:
A poor journalist I’m afraid.Omnium said:
She's first class. The best since John Cole.Anazina said:
Nope. She is a mediocre to poor journalist. More spin than scoop, 90% of the time.Gallowgate said:
Except it isn’t because Laura is a fine journalist who has done well to get where she is.Anazina said:BBC News is 100% better when Laura K is away. I flicked over to find her gone. Can she go on holiday more often?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/entertainment-arts-38666914
This is so egregious an example, I’m surprised it didn’t have greater consequences for her.
Frankly, I think if journalists aren’t annoying politicians, they’re not doing their job properly.0 -
Good on them for being prepared to go against the party line if it moves in that way, though I do wonder if they were also of the type to have complained of any efforts to make us prepared so we were not 'woefully unprepared'.Black_Rook said:0 -
.RobD said:
Probably her massive anti-Corbyn bias.Mortimer said:
You keep saying this without any explanation or evidence. Why do you think she’s a poor journo?Anazina said:
A poor journalist I’m afraid.Omnium said:
She's first class. The best since John Cole.Anazina said:
Nope. She is a mediocre to poor journalist. More spin than scoop, 90% of the time.Gallowgate said:
Except it isn’t because Laura is a fine journalist who has done well to get where she is.Anazina said:BBC News is 100% better when Laura K is away. I flicked over to find her gone. Can she go on holiday more often?
Sure. But annoying them by attributing their answer to a different question is off limits!Mortimer said:
Thanks for the answer.Anazina said:Mortimer said:
You keep saying this without any explanation or evidence. Why do you think she’s a poor journo?Anazina said:
A poor journalist I’m afraid.Omnium said:
She's first class. The best since John Cole.Anazina said:
Nope. She is a mediocre to poor journalist. More spin than scoop, 90% of the time.Gallowgate said:
Except it isn’t because Laura is a fine journalist who has done well to get where she is.Anazina said:BBC News is 100% better when Laura K is away. I flicked over to find her gone. Can she go on holiday more often?
.Mortimer said:
You keep saying this without any explanation or evidence. Why do you think she’s a poor journo?Anazina said:
A poor journalist I’m afraid.Omnium said:
She's first class. The best since John Cole.Anazina said:
Nope. She is a mediocre to poor journalist. More spin than scoop, 90% of the time.Gallowgate said:
Except it isn’t because Laura is a fine journalist who has done well to get where she is.Anazina said:BBC News is 100% better when Laura K is away. I flicked over to find her gone. Can she go on holiday more often?
Frankly, I think if journalists aren’t annoying politicians, they’re not doing their job properly.
But thanks for your thanks - and good night.0 -
The latest ONS data shows over 300k immigrants during the last year while also showing that the number of immigrants in work has fallen.Big_G_NorthWales said:
This is one area TM and I are not on the same page along with the tens of thousands pledge. In any successful economy we need immigration and making it difficult is anti businessYellow_Submarine said:
It sounds like a dystopian Love Actually where Huge Grant goes to Heathrow and blocks enterance to the immigrant half of couples in time for Christmas.Gallowgate said:
However, when and if we arrive at brexit, the rules on immigration will follow TM handing over
How does that sort of immigration make the economy successful ?0 -
Worth it for that fact alone surely?Black_Rook said:0 -
Personally I think only one of your list is in LK's league. That'd be John Simpson. He is though retired I think.Anazina said:
The list is too long to even properly begin here. Michael Crick, Jon Pienaar, John Simpson, Polly Toynbee, Emily Maitlis - do I really need to continue?Omnium said:
You said that, and I disagreed. I still disagree. Perhaps you'd tell us who is a good journalist in comparison?Anazina said:
A poor journalist I’m afraid.Omnium said:
She's first class. The best since John Cole.Anazina said:
Nope. She is a mediocre to poor journalist. More spin than scoop, 90% of the time.Gallowgate said:
Except it isn’t because Laura is a fine journalist who has done well to get where she is.Anazina said:BBC News is 100% better when Laura K is away. I flicked over to find her gone. Can she go on holiday more often?
I rate LK above all of them anyway.
John Cole, as I said, would be my yardstick. I rate her with him and the likes of James Cameron.
LK - I view her as simply outstanding.0 -
Soames retweeted approvingly So 4.kle4 said:
Good on them for being prepared to go against the party line if it moves in that way, though I do wonder if they were also of the type to have complained of any efforts to make us prepared so we were not 'woefully unprepared'.Black_Rook said:0 -
I would follow a different system for a Senate. While each constituency represented by a single randomly selected juror has appeal, it may well be hard to sell. I would suggest that each county gets to appoint one or two Senators per County or Metropolitan council, to serve until the next CC elections.dixiedean said:
Could be constituted as follows.kle4 said:
A Senate of the Nations/Regions I believe they called it. Was to be part of discussions in a grand constitutional convention I believe, one of Ed M's decentish ideas.Freggles said:
It's been put forward before, Labour alluded to something similar in 2015 manifestoEndillion said:
Mad idea: could we both solve national devolution and House of Lords reform simultaneously by reconstituting the House of Lords to have 25% representation from each nation (either appointed, elected or a combination)?RoyalBlue said:Treating the constituent countries of the U.K. as equivalent for constitutional purposes is a nonsense when England contains 85% of the population. There is no good reason why English votes should be worth much less than those in the other countries.
I think our ‘deep state’ is uniquely relaxed about its own disintegration.
NI 18
Wales 30
Scotland 52
in line with population .
Then 99 for England ie, not a majority .
This gives all areas representation, prevents parachuting in favourites to safe seats, and encourages good people to go into local government. Those appointed would tend to have lots of practical experience of administrative realities.
0 -
LOL, I'll believe it when I see it with Soubry. She's a blowhard who shouts and screams, then loses her nerve and votes with the government when it comes to the crunch.Black_Rook said:0
